Ruling on secretary’s power over pay hike reserved

THE Supreme Court has reserved its ruling on whether the National Judicial Staff Service (NJSS) secretary has the power to recommend an increase in staff pay.
This was an appeal by NJSS secretary Jack Kariko against a National Court decision last July 1, that refused to summon Finance secretary Dr Ken Ngangan to court to explain why their salaries had not increased since 2021 as decided by the Judicial Council in 2017.
Kariko’s lawyer, David Kulu, submitted among others, before a three-man bench comprising Justices Derek Hartshorn, Jeffery Shepherd and Alan David, that the trial judge had erred in fact and law in finding at his own accord that the Judicial Council had no authority to determine or recommend salaries and terms for NJSS officers.
Kulu said that section three of the NJSS Act established the functions of NJSS which included providing services to enable the courts to operate efficiently.
The NJSS Act goes on to establish the Judicial Council at section 3A.
Also, the trial judge had erred in fact and in law that the salaries of the officers of the NJSS were determined by regulations made under the NJSS Act 1987 or through determinations by the Salaries and Conditions and Monitoring Committee (SCMC).
Kariko asked the court to allow the appeal and dismiss the July 1 National Court decision.
State lawyer Kevin Kipongi, from the Solicitor General’s Office, argued that NJSS Act gives the power to the secretary to report to the Judicial Council on any alterations he thinks were necessary in the salaries and allowances of NJSS staff.
However, there was no provision in the NJSS Act that gave the secretary or council direction on what to do after the report was made.
Kipongi added that there was no evidence of the Judicial Council decision and the ground of appeal needed to be dismissed.
He also submitted that Kariko and the NJSS staff were part of and subject to the employment terms and conditions including salaries and allowances for the National Public Service except for Judicial Leaders (judges) who were constitutional holders.
He said the NJSS staff salaries and remunerations were subject to SCMC established under section 4(1) of the Salaries and Conditions Monitoring Committee Act 1988.
Kipongi said Kariko had failed to demonstrate any identifiable error in the judgment and the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
The court reserved its ruling to a later date.